These are currently my favorite boots.They're about 3 years old, and, as usual, I fear that they will be at their most comfortable right before they're worn out.
I have other boots; boots are my favorite footwear. No heels, though - I hate heels. Not on other people, just on me. Heels are pretty, but they hurt.
They might hurt less now; I had surgery on my feet to correct congenital bone deformations a few years ago. The receptionist asked me, as I left after getting my cast removed, "Are you going to go out and buy some great high heels now?" My answer was a resounding NO. I am all about comfort.
For most of my life, "dress shoes" meant high heeled sandals. A solid shoe had a tendency to squeeze my bunions, which was beyond painful. I bought sandals so that the bunion could stick out between the straps. Sure, it looked kind of funky, but it didn't hurt as much. My daughter did the opposite with her bunioned feet, because she was embarrassed by the bunions. No sandals, no flip flops - she wore shoes that hid her feet.
When I was in high school, these were my favorite dress shoes. (Yes, that's me wearing them.)
They were a big name brand, Candies, but I got them at a steep discount, because it was spring, and they were in fall colors. Pfft! I didn't care. I loved those shoes. But man, they HURT. If I wore them to a 2 day debate tournament, Friday and Saturday, I'd have to spend most of Sunday on my couch, off my feet. I'd limp through church, and most of that required sitting. Still, at that point, I considered it worth it, because the shoes were adorable.
At that age, I'd also deal with tight waistbands and other indignities, if I thought it looked good.
At 20, pregnancy forced me into flat shoes and clothes with stretch, and I realized that I'd been living my life all wrong. Now, if it isn't comfortable, I don't wear it, unless it's a lifesaving device.
The first time I came downstairs wearing these black boots with a dress, on my way to church, my youngest daughter informed me that I was fashionable. "That look is really hot right now, Mom! Good choice!"
That was not the response I got from my oldest daughter when I unpacked the boots at her house a couple of years ago. I'd come to attend my grandniece's naming ceremony, and was staying at my daughter's house; my nieces live about 30 minutes away from there. I'd worn sneakers through the airport, and had the boots in my luggage.
My daughter looked concerned. "Did you bring dress shoes?"
"These are my dress shoes." She looked blank, so I re-phrased. "I wear these with my dresses."
"Did you pack any church shoes?"
"These are my church shoes." Again the blank look, again the attempt to explain; "I wear these to church. (My daughter blinked.) I teach Gospel Doctrine in these shoes, every week."
"Did you bring any other shoes?"
I pointed to my sneakers. "These."
She was aghast. This is not surprising; she's despaired over my clothes, and wanted to dress me, since her age was in single digits.
She felt a bit better after we arrived at the synagogue. Another niece, the new baby's auntie, is easily the most fashionable person on that side of the family. She had on a dress and cowboy boots. My sister, the baby's grandma, is also terribly fashionable (and lovely); she had on a dress and knee high black boots.
My daughter felt better; not that she likes my boots, mind you, but because, "At least you aren't the only one." To be the only one doing anything is horrifying to her. I hope that she didn't notice that I'm the only one here in a pattern instead of a solid. Well, OK, not the only one; my niece has on a striped cardigan.
I think we all look pretty good. I certainly don't think that I look scandalous.
I am so very aware, however, that not everyone agrees with me. One of the things that frequently makes my life more difficult than it ought to be is the expectations for women's footwear, in either a business context or in a special occasion context.
My husband and I like to cruise, and cruises have formal nights. Dressing up isn't required, they won't bar you from the restaurants if you're dressed casually, but dressing up is nice. Plus, you can get great portraits on those nights. But, formal clothes are hard for me, specifically because of the shoes. I have a dress that I bought specifically for cruises. It's black and silver, from a higher end store than I usually patronize, looks good, and packs well. Yet it has never left my closet, because I can't find shoes that I'll wear and would be considered appropriate. My daughters lean on me to get ballet flats, but those are usually either too narrow or have zero arch support (or both), and as someone with collapsed arches, arch support is often a deal breaker issue.
Narrowness is also a huge issue. Go to the store, and put women's casual and dress shoes next to each other. The dress shoes will always, always be narrower. I've seen shoes marked "wide width" whose soles are an inch and a half narrower than my actual foot. With uncorrected bunions, that was easily 2 1/2 to 3 inches too narrow. I have seen too many dress shoes whose soles are less than two inches wide. Whose foot is that made for?
Men can, and often do, pair suits with casual shoes, even sneakers, and it's considered fun and fashionable and appropriate. My husband has a pair of black tennis shoes that he frequently wears with his dress clothes, because they blend, and people don't even notice. I can't do that. I've seen too many people raise their eyebrows when I wear sneakers with casual clothes, even on vacation.
When I competed in high school speech and debate, and thirty years later when I coached high school speech and debate, the students were supposed to dress up in "business" attire, to compete. The guys often just tossed on a blazer over their T-shirt, jeans and tennis shoes, and they were considered well dressed and prepared. Even if the T-shirt had a design on it, or the jeans were ripped, it could be passed off as edgy and trendy. A girl dressed the same way was seen as being inappropriately dressed, not caring about herself or the event, and unprepared. Even swapping pants for a skirt, but wearing the same top and shoes she'd worn to school, was often deemed inadequate. One of my students wore brand new, deep blue jeans with her blazer, and got "inappropriado wardrobe" written on her ballot. (We are still trying to figure out what "inappropriado" is actually supposed to mean, since it's not a real word.) Many, many girls packed slippers to wear between rounds, because their "appropriate" shoes hurt.
Business women do the same thing. How many go out to lunch in their office suits and skirts and sneakers, because their dress shoes are just for show, like for when they clock in or meet clients?
This was a constant struggle for me over decades of taking wedding photos. I could "look appropriate," or I could wear shoes that were comfortable. Sure, men sometimes face this struggle, too. I remember cringing when I heard a woman say that she "should have known" that she'd get "terrible photos" of the wedding when her male photographer showed up in sneakers. "How much of a professional could he be, dressed like that?"
This is why my husband, also a wedding photographer, always said, "I'm dressing up even if I'm the most formally dressed person at the wedding." To me, though, that's just evidence of how men and women move through life differently. It would be difficult, and often prohibitively expensive, for me to try to be the most formally dressed person at a wedding. Other women are likely to be in gowns, silk, satin, taffeta, sequins. I'm not going to be working in those clothes. I often end up climbing on chairs or benches, or getting flat on my stomach, to get the shot I want. It irks me tremendously that wearing clothes, and especially shoes, that let me do my job well is seen as being inappropriate, not caring about myself, the clients, or the occasion. I can't do my best work if I'm in pain. I shouldn't have to.
Three of my childen are married. To two of those weddings, where I was not only the parent of the bride or groom but also taking the photos, I wore boots under my floor length skirt.
Even though I expect it, in theory, I am still constantly surprised by how differently people view the same - or similar - circumstances.
We all do this, I think. We're sure that the facts point to a certain conclusion. Of course, there are often many valid conclusions. Life isn't so much a coin with two sides as it is a D&D die, with 20 possible sides.
Years ago, I was talking with another mother about something to do with kids being sick; maybe one of us had a sick child at that point. Then we talked about being grateful that we had medical insurance. As a young mother, I saw our medical coverage as pretty magical. For the first two decades of raising kids, a doctor's visit was $5. When people talk about "Cadillac insurance," that was what we had.
"Yeah," she said, "sometimes my parents couldn't even take us to the doctor without worrying. Or, they'd wait until we were really sick."
"Mine, too," I agreed. My parents had 4 kids, and our income was pension checks and a part time job. We never applied for any kind of assistance, either; that was for "poor people," moochers, or impending starvation. At the beginning of every school year, in the beginning of term forms, schools sent home a one page form for school district sponsored insurance. We'd get that when I was in school; it didn't help much, but it did help.
Being sick always meant waiting to see if an illness got worse or got better. If we started to feel better after two or three days, we knew it was a virus that would pass on its own. If we got worse, it meant prescription medicine, so that's when we went to the doctor. It seemed really normal to me - why panic if it was something that would just pass? My husband's father always phrased it this way - "Going to the doctor's office just exposes you to a bunch of sick people. That's where they all are. Why take your kid there unless you have to?"
The other mom started telling a story about her brother being sick, and how her parents waited to take him to the doctor, because they couldn't afford the visit. I can't remember what he had; honestly, until a certain point, this conversation wasn't really memorable, so I likely would have forgotten it entirely until it took an unexpected turn. At this point, it was all totally familiar and expected to me, like a conversation about getting dressed every day.
"By the time they went, he was so sick!" she said.
"Yeah, I remember what that's like." She'd reminded me of an illness that I'd had at 11 or 12. "Mine did the same thing."
"He could have died!" Years later, she was still upset about it.
"Me, too."
At this point, I thought we were still on the same page - we have a ridiculous medical system in this country. No other "first world" nation makes its citizens choose between medicine and food, doctor's visits or rent. No parent should be forced into that decision.
So, here I was, thinking that we both blamed the system. I was wrong. She blamed her parents. And the fact that I did not blame her parents deeply upset her. "I would do without anything for my son! I would take him to the doctor even if it meant that we'd end up homeless! No decent parent lets their child get sicker and sicker!"
Ouch; so, here, our opinions parted, because I agreed with my parents' choice, even when I was the sick child.
The illness I was thinking of started predictably. I always got sick easily and severely. It wasn't until I was in my 40s and had my thyroid removed that I could pinpoint any possible reason for that. It was just how it was. Being sick usually meant a week out of school, and often two weeks, even if it was "just a cold." I got the same illnesses every year. It was ordinary, like having to scrape your windshield.
Strep throat was one of those illnesses. I could pretty much guarantee that I'd have it at least once a winter, and often, more than once. It sometimes showed up in the warmer months, too. It just seemed to like me.
When I was in 6th or 7th grade, the winter that I turned 12, I got a case of strep that didn't respond to antibiotics. We went back to the doctor, and he prescribed stronger antibiotics, but the illness still didn't respond. It had been a couple of weeks already at this point.
I wasn't worried about schoolwork; my teachers sent it home, and I did it and sent it back, so I was maintaining good grades. (If I'd had the same attendence requirements that schools have now, I'd have failed at least three grades. Back then, they just needed you to do the work at home.) But, I was miserable. I was feverish, tired, headachy, and probably dehydrated, because it hurt to swallow even my own saliva. My mom made sure that I had juice, Jello, popsicles, and soup, but even cold, smooth food hurt, so I avoided eating or drinking too much.
When we made the decision to take me back to the doctor again, my dad insisted that we drive across town to see his doctor, instead of going back to my pediatrician. He was frustrated and angry that my doctor hadn't been able to find an effective treatment, and he wanted a second opinion. He trusted his own doctor more, he said, since mine was "failing" to help.
So, tired and grouchy, I was bundled across town to see my dad's doctor. He seemed nice, and his nurses seemed nice. They did the usual exam, and asked about symptoms - how long, how severe. He made sure to ask if I was actually taking my antibiotics, not just spitting them out when my parents weren't looking. I was mildly offended, but figured it was a fair question, since he'd never met me before and the drugs had worked in the past.
Then, he took both of my parents into his office, to have a private discussion. I was always annoyed by being excluded from conversations or decision making, especially when the decisions were about me, so I got a bit grumpier.
When they came out, they had a treatment plan. He explained that if the medications I'd already had hadn't worked, they'd have to give me something much stronger, and that meant shots. "This treatment isn't available orally," he said. I'd have to come in every single day to get shots until I improved, then taper down to every other day until I was well.
Shots never scared me or made me cry, but I've never liked them, either. Plus, I'd have to get out of my pajamas into real clothes and leave the house to go clear across town every day, which didn't sound great. But, being well again did sound great. So, OK, daily shots - let's do this.
He gave me the first shot before we left, and he and my mom discussed what time I'd come in every day. And, we went home with a plan.
It worked; after a few days, the fever was down, the pain was down, the headache was down.
The nurses tried to be cheerful, and alternated giving me the shots on the left and right sides, in this case being alternating butt cheeks. "Which side did we get yesterday?" a nurse would chirp while readying the premeasured vials of yellow liquid. I'd try not to roll my eyes. I mean, it was sweet, but there was no way to make this experience pleasant.
After a week or so, we tapered off to every other day, and that lasted another week or so. After that, I was back to school, back to normal, upset only at the quarter sized stain on my favorite jeans from an injection that bled. But, I was glad to know that there was a treatment that worked when others didn't, in case we needed it again some day.
When I was 14 or 15, I was talking to my mom about some illness or other - I probably had strep again - and said, "Remember when I had to go get shots every day?"
Of course she did. And, now that the danger had passed, she let me in on, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story."
That treatment plan had been a compromise between what the doctor wanted and what my family could pay for. The strep was turning into scarlet fever, and the doctor wanted me hospitalized.
Strep alone can be deadly, and often was in the days before antibiotics. There is a theory out there that Mozart died from strep. Scarlet fever can be even more deadly. In one scarlet fever outbreak in the U.S., there was a 5% fatality rate. For comparison, COVID-19 has a fatality rate up to 1%. If you read the Little House on the Prairie books, you know that Mary Ingalls went blind due to scarlet fever. The illness that took Helen Keller's sight and hearing is believed to have been scarlet fever.
When my parents said, accurately, that we could not pay for a hospital stay, they and the doctor collectively came up with this alternative. I would get shots every day. If I improved, fine, I stayed at home. If I did not improve, he would hospitalize me against my parents' wishes, and ask the state to take emergency custody of me, and therefore the state would cover the cost.
My immediate reaction was, "Thank you! I would have been so stressed in the hospital that I would have gotten so much worse!" Knowing that we'd dodged a hospital stay was the big deal for me as a teen.
Sometimes, I tell this story, and other people will say, "Oh, of course, being away from your parents would be so scary!" That's not quite what I meant. Sure, it would. But being around other people, 24 hours a day, was what sounded awful. Back then, children's wards were big open rooms with beds down both sides. It was easier for the nurses to watch over and care for multiple kids this way. You could get semi-private or private rooms if you had a lot of cash, but we (obviously) didn't. Being in a room full of other kids either meant that they'd exhaust me with chattering and interaction, or ignore me while chattering with everyone else. That was what happened every time I was in a group, especially of people I didn't know. Neither option was comfortable. Add in nurses and doctors checking on me at all hours, and it was exhausting to even imagine. I couldn't imagine getting well that way.
I still dislike being in the hospital. I do not understand people who find it restful or reassuring.
Still, my comfort was not my parents' primary concern. They didn't make their choice in order to spare me from awkwardness, even though my first inclination was to assume that they had. It's pretty easy for someone to say that "any reasonable parent" would hospitalize their child "no matter what," but there were 5 people at home. My dad was retired, with a heart condition. They simply could not prioritize me, or any one of us, over the other four, or over their continued ability to pay our bills.
It took years before I started thinking of the other side of that coin, the "emergency custody" side. To do that, the doctor would have had to allege medical neglect. I would have been a ward of the state. After I was well, my parents would have had to petition the court to regain custody of me. Now, I can see how terrifying that must have been for them. I can imagine them asking a judge to send me home, and the judge grilling them - "How do we know that this won't happen again? How do we know that she'll receive adequate care? How do we know that your other minor child is safe?" It would have been a nightmare.
The worst part of that scenario, of course, is that I absolutely was not neglected. They had taken me to the doctor, repeatedly. I was taking medication, as prescribed. They weren't hermits who refused all medical care. They were trying their hardest, but their kid was sick, and getting sicker.
Despite my friend's conviction that sleeping in the car would be a reasonable choice at that point, she was a single mom with one child. We didn't even have a car that would sleep all of us. Besides, being homeless, especially with a sick child, is likely to result in your child going into foster care. So, while I think that she's a compassionate person and a dedicated parent, I can't agree with her about this.
I think that both my parents and the doctor handled the situation properly. Defer to parents' wishes, but have a plan B in case the child's life is endangered. Everybody's rights and opinions are respected. The child gets treatment, which is the entire point of health care.
My anger is not directed at my parents, who were doing everything that they could. It is not at the doctor, who recognized the illness and its possible consequences. It is at a system that makes parents choose between hospitalizing their child and facing financial ruin for the whole family, or losing custody of their child. No parent should ever have to make that choice. Ever. The only thing worse would be being faced with that decision, and then criticized for it - which is what happens when you decide that all "good" parents will do things the same way.
Our system treats medical care the same way it treats unnecessary consumer products - the whole idea that demand will even out supply and cost. It's not a purse or a car, it's a life. They're different.
So, while I am beyond glad to have had our "Cadillac insurance" while raising my kids, I still view the system as profoundly broken. And I become more and more impressed by my parents' ability to navigate this hostile landscape.
When I was a kid, I read parts of the newspaper every day, but it wasn't the headlines. It was the comics, Dear Abby, and Dave Barry. (I'm still miffed that Dave Barry no longer writes regular columns.) As an adult, I also read the news, but I still love the comics. I sometimes read advice columns; I might agree with the advice, not agree, or have no basis for an opinion (like the advice columns in my husband's handyman magazines; I don't know how to wire your new whatever).
I have rarely thought that an advice columnist was farther off the mark than when they answered a query from someone who wrote in to say, "I hate it when cars drive right next to me. I feel compelled to either speed up or slow down. Is this normal?"
Let me just digress for a moment here to say, I am baffled by the sheer number of people who apparently worry about whether or not they are "normal." I only tend to worry about it in, say, terms of post-op recovery, so I know when I need to seek out the doctor - "Your body will do this or that, but don't worry, it's normal."
I'm more like my son. His sister frequently asks, "Is it weird that I like (x)?" He has no patience for this, and is likely to snap, "Who cares? So you like it. It doesn't matter if that's weird." While I think he should be less snappish about it, that's how I feel. Like it or don't. There is no reason to spend a single second wondering if you're "normal." I think this behavior is a result of people deciding that normal = desirable, which it does not.
But anyway - back to the advice.
I was positive that I knew what the columnist would say. I, too, hate having cars next to me, or too close in front or behind. I think the reasons for this are obvious, and rooted in safety. A car near you, especially at freeway speeds, has the potential to harm you. If the other driver so much as sneezes, or looks at their phone, or gets aggressive in passing, you can be seriously harmed or killed. Cars are deadly weapons. I know nothing about most drivers that I'll encounter, but I'm asked to trust them literally with my life, and the lives of my family. I am most comfortable when they are far from me, not so close that I could touch them. So yes, I hate it when they want to drive right next to me. I, too, will speed up or slow down in order to shake them off.
This is not what the columnist said. She blathered on for several paragraphs about perceived intimacy. People like to think that they are anonymous in their cars, she said, so having someone close enough to see you feels like forced intimacy, so it makes us emotionally uncomfortable.
What? On what planet? They have thousands of pounds of metal right next to me, and I don't know if they're careful! I don't care if they can make eye contact! I'm worried about automobile contact!
But no; the columnist wanted to carry on about intimacy issues. I found myself mentally addressing her - "Honey, I'm not dating them! I'm trying to stay alive at 75 MPH!"
Maybe you have intimacy issues. I don't care, as long as you stay in your lane.
I should probably never write an advice column (I'd end up saying, "Who cares if you're normal?" and people would sue); but I'm sure that I'm right about this.
My parents read a lot. We had lots of magazines and books around the house, and from the time we could read, none of us were forbidden to touch any of them. There were no trashy romance novels, no stashes of porn; the closest thing to inappropriate was a pile of Cosmos that a cousin had handed down (and my mom had no interest in). Plus, a lot of the thrillers and such were in Condensed Book form, so they were the equivalent of movies cut for TV. Anything graphic was edited out.
There were books we had to treat carefully, and those were on high shelves - the encyclopedias, the old family Bibles. We were expected to have clean hands, be gentle, put them away.
We had lots of storybooks, too, but if we could read something the adults owned, that was OK. Mom sometimes told us that we probably wouldn't like a book that was really dry, from a kid's point of view, or warned us that there was something we might not like (for me, that meant animals dying. I still loved Old Yeller). But if we could read the words, we could read the book (or magazine).
I remember sitting in the living room and reading a magazine while my mom sat across the room reading something. I came across a word I didn't know. I was never the kid who just skipped those; I had to find out how to say it, and what it meant. So, I asked my mom, "What are genitals?"
She looked a bit surprised, and said, "Private parts - reproductive organs. What are you reading that has that word in it?"
"Reader's Digest." She raised her eyebrows, so I elaborated - "It's an article about a bear attack. It says the man covered his during the attack." Now I understood why.
Mom said, "I'll bet he did." Then she wanted to know, "Did he survive?"
"I haven't finished the article yet, but the title has the word 'survival' in it, so I'm guessing he did."
"That's good," Mom said, and went back to reading.
That kind of parenting was perfect for me. She didn't lecture me about reading something scary and tell me that I'd have nightmares. (Books rarely scared me.) She didn't rush to reassure me that bear attacks were rare, and that we were safe when we went into the woods. (I knew that anyway, and the article had already covered that ground if I didn't.) She certainly never refused to tell me what a word meant, or made me feel bad for asking. She gave clear, factual answers, without unnecessary detail.
I was eight years old when the book Jaws came out. I remember clearly lying in the hammock in the back yard, reading in the opening pages the description of the first victim reaching down, thinking she'd caught her foot on something, and discovering that her whole leg was gone. A fly landed on my book, and in irritation I slammed the book shut, squishing it between the pages, then regretted my impulsiveness.
I loved Brody, Hooper and Quint. I loved the way that each needed the other's expertise to get the job done. I rolled my eyes at their bickering, and was captivated by their bonding. I understood parts of each of their personalities.
At eight, though, my only experience with losing a main character was Old Yeller. I naively assumed that all of our principles would live. After all, so far, everyone who'd died had been someone we'd met for mere moments.
Then Quint died. I took it very hard; I was devastated. Decades later, I still feel it.
I did not understand the reaction that a lot of people had: "I will never go in the ocean again!" A very literal person, I could not figure out if people had never known that sharks existed. That seemed unlikely. If you knew that sharks existed, why would a book about one be surprising? Turns out, most of them had just never considered that a shark might attack them, personally.
My reaction was, "You know what in the ocean is most likely to kill you? The water." Most animals will leave you alone, most of the time. Water is relentless, and doesn't care about you. Still, people felt sure that intellect and ability would keep them safe from the actual water - just don't breathe it, right? A shark sounded much more unpredictable and frightening.
Still, I fell back on the numbers, how many people die every year from drowning vs. shark attack. Plus, Benchley called his character a "rogue" shark, over and over. The whole point was that this was not a normal shark, and not a normal summer. Plus, it was fiction. He could have made the shark talk if he wanted to; fiction is not constrained by facts.
Decades later, I'm still afraid of drowning; sharks still don't bother me a bit.
The next year, when the movie came out, kids at school kept asking each other, "Have you seen Jaws?" I kept saying, "No, but I've read the book." (One kid earned a scowl by saying, "What book?")
When I was sleeping over at a friend's house, her dad asked my mom if it was OK if I went with them to the movie. "Sure. She's read the book; she'll be fine," Mom said. And she was right; the scenes of the camera gliding over the ocean bottom at the beginning of the show felt scarier than any of the scenes with the shark.
Except when we still lost Quint. I hoped that they'd let him live this time, but no. In a way, that made me happy, because I hate it when filmmakers change the plot, but I hated losing Quint, too.
I had the same rules for my kids concerning books as my mom had had for me - clean hands, treat it right, don't leave it out, put it away when you're done. But I didn't have any books that I hid from them. If there was something not appropriate for kids - I read a lot of mysteries and histories, and people in those have a tendency to die, often in colorful ways - I put it on a high shelf. By the time you could reach the shelf, you'd be old enough to read it.
My daughter was home from college for a visit, and I said something about a crime; I forget which one. "Oh, yeah, I read about that in your book," she said.
"Which book?" I wanted to know.
She told me, then said, "Whoops. I probably shouldn't have told you that." It was a book about famous unsolved crimes - Jack the Ripper, the Black Dahlia, JonBenet Ramsey.
"Why not?"
"Because I read your book."
"Did you ruin it?"
"No."
"Did you put it back?"
"Yeah."
"Then what's the problem?"
"I figured you'd be mad if I read it."
"Let me get this straight. It's a book that I bought - not just borrowed, but spent money on. It's something that I'm interested in. And you thought that would be a problem?"
"Well, yeah. People were, like, murdered."
"So, you thought that a book that sat in plain sight, on a shelf literally right outside your bedroom, would be forbidden."
"Well, yeah." She actually looked a bit disappointed that I wasn't angry, but I thought that this was very funny. Kid, if I didn't want you to know that the book existed, I would not put it at eye level, 6 inches away from your bedroom door.
Also, if I would have said, "This is really fascinating, you should read this," I probably would have gotten, "Ew! That's gross! What is wrong with you? Why would I want to read that?"
I have only one book with pages that I don't want left where people can see them, and that's because I would have a problem. I own a big, glossy, fascinating book about the Titanic. But, the pages with photos of the wreck are paper clipped together. The kids all know that they're welcome to look, but as soon as they're done, those paper clips go back on!
Because the scariest thing in my books is still the water.
I am sincerely not a germaphobe. I mean that; I'm not the kind of person who disinfects their knick-nacks weekly, but thinks "that's just normal."
Let me give you an example. I believe firmly in the five second rule, unless the item is wet or sticky. (Mythbusters confirms this, by the way.) Once, as a kid, I dropped an Oreo, then picked it up and blew on it before taking a bite. Another kid looked at me with disgust, and said, "You know that you can't blow the germs off, right?"
I said, "I'm not worried about germs. I'm blowing off any dust bunnies," and took another bite. I mean, who wants a mouthful of lint?
Thinking about it, I wonder if that kid ever talked to me again. Other children did not find me endearing.
Anyway, that's where I'm coming from when I say this: how you handle your illnesses could potentially kill me.
I know that's hard to understand, because I know lots of normal people who can't quite imagine it. But there it is.
Let's talk about my lungs for a minute. I spent years, in fact all of my childhood, not really thinking about my lungs. They were there, they worked, end of story. Now, it's a whole different ball game.
More than 20 years ago, I went, with my family, to a friend's wedding out of state. It was lovely, we had a great time, but I got sick on the way home. I grumbled about the misery of being sick in the summer, and finally had to go to the doctor. I was diagnosed with bronchitis, and given medication.
I'd never had bronchitis as a kid. The sensation of trying to breathe but not getting any air was new.
Anyway, I went through a full course of antibiotics, but still didn't feel well. So I had a second course, and then finally, a third. It had been over two months of illness by this time. The doctor assurred me that I was fine, but I didn't feel fine.
I went back to the doctor's office a fourth time. "I don't understand why I don't feel better," I said. The physician's assistant looked at my chart and said, rather irritably, "You've got to come to terms with the fact that you now have lung damage. You're undoubtedly going to be asthmatic from now on."
Note to health care professionals: You may want to ask if a patient has ever been informed that they have a condition before you tell them to accept it. I had never been informed that I had lung damage, or that I was now asthmatic, until that moment. It was not a great way to find out.
It took months to get used to my new normal. When I finally did, though, it got to the point that I rarely thought about asthma. I didn't need daily medication, or adjustments to my life. When I got sick, though, with even a cold, it would move down into my lungs and I'd need an inhaler. It's annoying, but doable.
More than a decade passed that way. Sick = treat my lungs; well = business as usual. Of course, "usual" was the new usual, right, the one with diminished lung capacity. Still, I'm not a pro athlete or professional musician, so the new normal worked fine. Actually, it gave me empathy for people who struggle daily.
I'm still not entirely sure what happened. I didn't move to a new climate, get a new job, gain or lose a ton of weight, take up smoking or vaping, or change in any other noticable way. But slowly, my lungs got worse. Then, for no reason apparent to me, they got rapidly worse.
I'm guessing it's probably the same thing that happened back when they were initially damaged - I got sick, it lingered, more damage. I can't pinpoint a moment, and (much as I really do love my doctor's office) nobody really tried to sleuth out why or when - they just treated the symptoms. So, instead of a rescue inhaler, I now have 2 daily inhalers (different drugs, different treatment regime; one is once a day, one is twice a day), a rescue inhaler (potentially every 4 hours), and a daily COPD pill. (I didn't think the pill was doing much until I ran out, and went for 10 days without it.)
I struggle to breathe, every day. The last three years have been difficult. Things that were always irritants - I have allergies - now are perilous. Dust, pollen, animal fur, cold temperatures will all seize up my lungs, to the point that I'm struggling for oxygen. Not "for air;" - I know some people feel as if they have a weight on their chest, or a band across their chest, but I feel as if my lungs are taking in the same amount of air, big, deep breaths, but there's no oxygen in the air. It's like breathing helium. Your lungs inflate, but you get no oxygen.
My voice will either get thin and breathy, or low and growly. That's usually the signal - break out the rescue inhaler. Sometimes, I don't notice. My daughter in law has gotten really good about saying to me, calmly and conversationally, "Your lips are turning blue. You probably ought to take your inhaler."
I do a lot less outside my home. During the winter, especially, I won't even go grocery shopping after dark. It's too cold - I can't breathe. Some days, I'm reduced to writing notes and giving hand signals to my family, and I've lost perspective enough to spend those days thinking, "Hey, no coughing fits! I'm doing great!" instead of, "Holy cow, I cannot even carry on a conversation."
Just in case you're going to say something like, "Hey, how do you know it's not just your weight?" or, "Maybe you're just out of shape," be aware that I've had those conversations with doctors, I've gone to see specialists, I recently had a cardiologist get (really annoyingly, frankly) complimentary about my heart health after a cardiac stress test.
Ironically, while going to the grocery store or my Rotary Club meetings has gotten difficult, going far away is often fantastic. Hawaii, Florida, cruises - my lungs love it there. We recently spent 11 days of a 14 day cruise entirely at sea, and my lungs were so happy. No dust, no pollen, no animals, no cold - two of my three inhalers never left their packaging. (I take the once a day inhaler no matter what.) It felt absolutely healing.
Then I came home, ran my vaccuum, and was back to writing notes. Coughing, wheezing, siiting in my recliner obsessively measuring my oxygen saturation and pulse; that kind of thing happens way too often.
I have a little fingertip monitor for my oxygen saturation and pulse. In a perfect world, saturation would be 100%. In most people, it's 96% or 97%. If you're in the hospital, alarms will go off if yours hits 85% (I know from experience). I have spent days with mine hovering at 90% to 91%, with my pulse rate at 112 beats per minute. 120 beats is considered normal for "strenuous exercise." All it takes is dust, or pollen, or a cold, or... you get the idea.
Once, mine was so low that the monitor couldn't read it. My son, my husband, everyone got readings but me; for me, it said there was no finger in the monitor. Naturally, I try to avoid that.
So, that's my normal existence. Now imagine how I feel about illnesses, especially those that affect the lungs. I'm not just talking about COVID-19, I'm talking about the flu, pneumonia, bronchitis. Any of those could kill me, easily.
My bonus daughter is a nurse, and in discussing coronavirus online, she was explaining that "it's like the flu" does NOT mean, "it's mild, no big deal." It means, "It's deadly, and will kill thousands every year." Her exact words were, "We should be terrified of viruses. We've gotten complacent and lazy." We view illness as an inconvenience, not a killer. We're wrong.
You know what used to kill people every year? Winter. The cold, the lack of available food back in the days when you had to grow and hunt your own, then try to store it long term with no refrigeration or canned goods, killed the old, the young, the sick, every single winter. People would travel to their neighbor's farms, or into the village, when spring came, in order to see who survived and who passed away.
Anyway; I digress. Illnesses are scary and can kill me. They can kill you, too, but they'll take me first. But to do that, they need to pass from one person to another. You know what prevents that? Staying home when you're sick!
Advertising tells us differently. It says, "Take this over the counter medication, and you can go about your day like normal! Go to work, go to the gym, go out to dinner!" That's terrible advice, terrible. That's equivalent to driving drunk. You're gambling that your behavior won't harm or kill someone else, and you're doing so in order to have fun or to feel good about yourself. Because, too many of us feel that being sick is being weak, and not being able to carry on is a sign of bad character.
I just read about a young lady who passed away from COVID-19; her family said that she felt strongly about doing her job, so she went to work "until she couldn't breathe." I admire her love of her job and her clients, but she may have killed some of them.
The worst thing about this virus is that it can pass to others when you have no symptoms, when you don't know that you have it. That's why we're all quarantined at home.
When you're sick, even "just a cold," stay home. During a pandemic, stay home, even if you're healthy. Don't become a carrier.
You wouldn't drive drunk - at least, I hope not. So, don't spread germs. Don't spread viruses. It will kill those of us who already have health issues. Natural selection does not cover your arrogant, self absorbed or careless behavior. Nature is not designed around you getting your own way at the expense of others.
Society shut down for fear of polio, and most times, polio would not kill you.
You can handle some boredom and inconvenience. Stay home. I'm trying to breathe.
I'm going to talk about homes. I'm not intending this to be an endorsement of anything or anyone political, just so you know. Yeah, sure, I have opinions on leaders and laws and how to be a good person, but mostly I just believe that it's my job to put information out there, and it's your job to decide what to do about it. And when you put info out, I decide. That's just how it is. Anyway...
I grew up with three siblings, my mom, and my dad in a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house. In some ways, it was really idyllic. We had a big yard, fish, gerbils, a rat, cats, dogs and horses. We ice skated in our own back yard. We rode horses. We built clubhouses, climbed trees, and borrowed my mom's jewelry to be "pirate treasure" and bury it and dig it up again. We took a week long vacation every year, and often smaller trips as well.
It was also pretty tough, money-wise. As a single man, Dad had no savings and no credit. He lived in a studio apartment, and ate out daily. He was 50 when my parents got married. It was my mom's second marriage, so my parents started their married life as a family of four. Then, they had two more kids. When I, the baby, was six months old, my dad was encouraged by his employer, the fire department, to retire as a consequence of heart problems. I no longer remember the exact nature of the problem - whether it was a heart attack, a-fib or what. But his boss felt that firefighting was too physically difficult for Dad anymore, that it would aggravate his health and endanger himself and his co-workers. So, at 56, with 4 kids and a mortgage, Dad retired. Dad was, for the record, bitter about this.
They'd planned on mom being a stay at home parent, but now, if we wanted to eat, Mom had to work. Dad did not want to feel that she was the primary breadwinner, though, so she worked 20 hours a week. Every now and then Dad would take on a part time job - distributing seeds to retailers, night watchman at a warehouse. But mostly, we lived on his pension and Mom's paycheck.
I realize now that we would have qualified for all kinds of government assistance, but I can only see my parents requesting and accepting that help if it was a matter of life or death. And it never was; we could only invite friends for dinner on spaghetti night, because there wasn't enough to share on any other night, but we always knew we'd be fed. I usually owned one pair of pants at a time, but we had clothes. Vacations meant sleeping in a tent and cooking on a camp stove, but we went some amazing places.
And we never, ever worried about losing our home. My parents bought the house in 1960, and paid it off when I was in my teens. I remember how relieved my mom was, how much of a weight it took off of them.
It would be impossible to do that today. I'm not exaggerating - it would be sincerely impossible. Can you imagine buying a home on part time wages and a pension? Can you imagine raising four kids on part time wages and a pension? Can you imagine doing it without any assistance, from family or church or government? Of course you can't. But my parents did it. They were careful. We did without a lot of things. But it never, ever felt perilous, because it could be done.
My husband grew up a couple of miles from our house, with his two sisters and his mom and dad. Their house was a 2 bedroom, 1 bath, built in 1927. The house was 1204 square feet. I don't know what they paid for it, but the average home price when it was built was $6000. In 1956, the year my inlaws were married and bought their house, the average price was $11,700.
My parents' house was built in 1959; when they bought it a year later, the average home price was $12,400. It was, at 1318 square feet, slightly larger than my inlaws' home. For years, people expected to have a bedroom for the parents, and one for the children. By the time my parents got married, people expected a third bedroom, so they could separate the boy children and the girl children.
I remember my parents being flabergasted when their house first assessed at $50,000. "Can you imagine?" they said, over and over. It seemed like an incredibly large sum to them.
The first home we bought was a single wide trailer on an acre and a third; we paid $29,500 in 1987. It had 3 bedrooms and 1 full and one half bath in roughly 700 square feet. In 1989, we bought a factory built ("manufactured") home with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. It was 988 square feet; we paid $50,000. Nothing was being built anymore without 2 bathrooms, or at least one full and one half bath. People usually expected a "master suite," a bedroom with an attached bath.
Our current home was built in 1972, when the average home price was $39,500. This house had 4 bedrooms and 2 baths (no master suite). The owners added a family room, 2 more bedrooms and another bath (in the new master suite). We bought it at 2304 square feet in 1994 for $110,000.
I'm sure you noticed, but I'll point it out anyway. Houses have been getting larger and larger for decades. Things that are considered "standard" were once luxurious. Our former house, with a separate laundry room (something my mother never had - her washing machine was in her kitchen) almost qualifies as a "tiny house," as those are considered to be anything 900 square feet or smaller.
So, why am I bringing this up? Why all the numbers? I'm getting to that.
I (too) frequently see something in the news about homelessness, and they'll have a family just like the one I grew up in - only something happened to them. "We were doing OK until Bobby got sick." "We were fine until my car accident." Usually, both parents will be working, but they'll go from "comfortably middle class" to homeless faster than they ever imagined possible - especially if there's a single income (like, having a single parent household).
My parents had no health insurance. And life happened to us - a traffic accident for my brother, my sister being bitten by a dog who nearly severed her upper lip, me having an illness (strep throat becoming scarlet fever) that should have hospitalized me. Part of the difference, for us, was the policies and expectations of our doctors, dentists, orthodontists. Every single time I remember getting any health care at all, my mother would say to the receptionist, "I need a payment plan." The receptionist would say, "Certainly. How much can you pay per month?" She'd write it down - even if it was $5, even if we already had a balance - and that was that. You can't do that any more. Even if you can find a doctor who'll take uninsured patients - and good luck - you can't just set up payments with the provider, on the day of service, for whatever you think that you can afford.
I was 7 when my brother was in the accident that not only caused soft tissue damage, but broke the bones and cartilege in his face. He needed reconstructive surgery, and they feared that he might lose the sight in one eye. That's exactly the kind of thing that can derail families who have very little financial leeway. At that point, if we'd been paying rent somewhere, it might have been the breaking point. Or, it could have started an avalanche. The last time that I lived in a rented apartment, the rent went up three times in twelve months. About a year after my brother's accident, we bought a family car that quickly became known as The Lemon, because it always needed some kind of repair. About the same time, my sister had her dog bite accident, and she too needed a reconstructive surgeon. Of the six of us, four needed glasses, two needed orthodontics. Imagine all of that happening, all at once, to a family on a tight budget.
If we had been renting, if we had fallen behind on mortgage payments, if there had been a variable interest rate or balloon payment, if we had to choose between medical care and food, everything may have unraveled for us. Maybe we could have moved in with relatives, but with six of us, it would be nearly impossible long term. Maybe my brother and sister would have had to leave before they were really ready, because we had no room. My sister is the only one of us with a university degree; maybe that would not have happened if we were homeless. Maybe my dad, in his mid 60s with health issues, could have found a job in, say, retail; maybe not. All of this is conjecture, because we never had to find out.
Instead, we stayed in our own home, Mom planned our meals around grocery store sales, and I have great memories of backyard campouts, getting permission for my friends to ride horses with us, and posters on my bedroom walls. The house not only held all of us, but housed various family members at times of crisis or relocation or out of town visits, over several decades.
That's not the only way that our parents' homes benefitted us, of course. Grandparents on both sides of the family rented to our children, at below market rates. Both grandparents' homes were offered to our children after their grandparents' passing. My son and his wife are buying one of those homes, with terms that make it comfortable for them. Our home's mortgage was paid off by money from my inlaws' estate. Money from both families' estates gave us down payments for "investment" condos.
We bought the condos specifically in order for our family members to have somewhere affordable to live. Long term, we may live in one ourselves, or sell them, or use the rental income during retirement. (Because, owning homes gives you choices.) But, mostly, our motivation was to give our kids somewhere affordable to live.
I realize how enormously privileged we are to even be able to make that choice, believe me. It sounds obnoxiously affluent to even say it out loud. But, I stand behind that decision.
The first one we bought was a 2 bed, 2 bath model, not far from our home. Everything went seamlessly. The mortgage agent said, "Just so you know, I can qualify you for 5 more at this price." We put it up for rent (our kids were either living elsewhere or still in school), asking only a small amount over our mortgage payment. (You've gotta have a cushion for repairs and emergencies.) We got a lot of inquiries that ended with, "It's cute, but I can't afford that much." We rented to strangers for a while, and when they moved out, my nephew's family moved in.
Two or three years later, we put an offer on a 1 bed, 1 bath condo. It's adorable, and in a bigger complex, so there are more amenities (playgrounds and tennis courts, as well as a pool, clubhouse, BBQs.) It cost half what the 2 bed condo cost. But, local prices were starting to skyrocket, and we wanted something that our youngest could afford, even if the only job she ever held was her high school job at a fast food place. (At my age, I look at market rates for even studio units, and think, "Who can afford that?")
We didn't anticipate any problems. Our credit is good, we had the down payment, we were remembering what the mortgage agent said last time - "5 more at this price" - and this was, I can't emphasize this enough, half the cost of our other condo (which made sense to me, as it's half the bedrooms and bathrooms). So, we didn't get financing in place first, since we anticipated it being a breeze.
It was not. Our first choice of mortgage company wouldn't finance it. Neither would our second choice mortgage company, or our credit union. The problem? "There are too many rentals in that development. Choose another development with more owner occupied units." But we didn't want another development, we wanted that one. Meanwhile, the owner was getting grouchy because he'd received an all cash offer right after he accepted our offer, so now he was tied up waiting for us, instead of closing a cash sale.
The fact that we bought the condo at all is due to two things - 1. our realtor has known us for years, and was willing to work a little bit harder, take a little longer, and be a little bit unconventional, and 2., we know someone who has a large family trust, and was willing to loan us the money at just over bank interest rates.
Which, of course, got me thinking; the price and payment should have put the condo in the price range of people with limited incomes. Someone working for minimum wage, or just over, could afford it even without making 40 hours a week; they'd probably need 30 or so - and that's a single person (or couple with a single income). Then there'd be more owner occupied units, too, so everyone would be happy, right? But here's the thing: if middle aged people with great credit, low debt and no current mortgage couldn't get financing, how could somebody young, working in a fast food place, qualify? Banks don't want the loan, and young people (let's face it, any people) are unlikely to know someone wealthy enough to give them a private loan. See the problem?
And it's not like this was a slum that no one would want to live in. Aside from the fact that I'd personally be happy there (or I wouldn't have bought it), looking for renters was a stark contrast to looking for renters just two years earlier. We heard from friends, relatives, acquaintences, strangers, and friends and relatives of our friends, relatives and acquaintences. We were again asking only a bit over our payment, but this time, nobody asked if we could go lower or said, "It's cute, but I can't afford that much." We had families of three and four asking if we'd consider them, even with only one bedroom. I felt quite overwhelmed by the need, and referred everyone to our property manager. She did all the credit checks and made the final choice.
What had changed? Rents in our area skyrocketed, with the news that a couple of large companies with good wages were going to be locating here. Many rental prices doubled; some tripled. Renters who'd been in the same place for years suddenly could no longer afford their homes. We made the national news for our "housing crisis." And everything new being built was "luxury units," because, "that's where the demand is."
This, of course, is not true. It's where the money is.
In making inquiries about putting a house on an inherited piece of land, one of my family members found out that even owning the land free and clear doesn't make things easier. In asking about the cost to put a modest sized home - less than 2,000 square feet - on the vacant land, the answer from the owner of a local construction company was, "Here's the approximate cost per square foot. But I can tell you right now, nobody's going to be willing to work on a house that size. The money is in 3,000+ square foot custom and executive homes. No one's going to turn down one of those to come build a smaller house, especially one without the high end finishes." The same applies for apartments; nobody wants to build units for baristas, maids and fast food workers, because the money is in "luxury units." This is true no matter how many hotel rooms, fast food restaurants, discount stores and gas stations (and their employees) there are in my city (that depends on tourism).
Of course, it isn't just my city. My brother lives in another state. He is recently retired; he's living on Social Security and a small amount of savings. He's rented the same home for years. (He previously owned a house, but lost it in a contentious divorce with an ex who exploited a legal loophole to take virtually everything.) For years, his rent remained the same. Then, the landlord died, and the heir "doesn't want to be a landlord" (which is absolutely his right), so he's selling the house. This means that my brother was dumped back into shopping for a home literally decades after he last had to, he's been paying 1990s era rent, and he has no wiggle room in his budget. Oh, and throw in a looming deadline.
Waiting lists for low income senior apartments are 2 years long. Most senior housing in his state is in mobile home parks, meaning that he'd have to buy a mobile home and then rent the space, putting himself at risk when the lot rent goes up (and you know that it will go up). Plus, lot rent was often more than he had available, more than the rent he'd been paying. (Plus, after he dies, he couldn't pass the house down to anyone, unless they were over 55.) There are programs designed to help low income seniors buy homes, but they will not cover condos, mobile homes, factory built homes, or older houses. There's renter's assistance, but it will not cover living anywhere owned by a member of your family. You know - you can't get help for anything that would actually be affordable for a senior living on Social Security.
He got one call back from a woman with an assistance program who said, "Oh, sure, we have a great house right in your area that I can get you into." The mortgage would have left him with $400 a month to cover everything else - food, utilities, gas, clothing, medical care. That's not doable. Just his glasses and dental care could potentially eat all of that up, if he needed them both in the same month. He lives where it not only snows, it snows a lot, so he needs heat. You can't even eat ramen noodles and take the bus on $400 a month.
He has siblings, he has other family members; he immediately had offers to live in 3 different homes, rent free. But, all of those would mean moving to another state, shopping for doctors (he's diabetic, he has an ulcer that tends to bleed, and he has a heart attack and bypass surgery in his past), giving up his friends and what he loves, hiking and photographing his area. I mean, it's certainly doable. But, aside from concerns like doctors and interstate moving costs, a man who's lived on his own since the last century does not want to move into somebody's spare bedroom, like he's a college kid.
He panicked, the rest of the family panicked, everyone scrambled, there was a deadline. Do you know what - who - saved him? Our grandmother and our mother, who've been dead for years.
Grandma had a vacation home - what we call a cabin and she called a cottage. When she died, our mom put the money from the sale of the cottage in a separate account, and just let it sit there. When Mom died, it went to her children. Some of it was still left - almost enough for a down payment on a home. But, my brother couldn't qualify, because he was retired, on Social Security. Family members offered to buy a home, but the one he wanted was a factory built house, and the bank wouldn't let them buy it unless they were going to live in it. The bank would approve them for other homes, but then my brother couldn't afford the payments, and nobody in the family can afford to make them for him. But, with Grandma's money, and relatives willing to co-sign, and the bank being happy because one of the applicants was going to live in the house, and family members being able to pitch in the rest of the cash needed, he now has a home.
It's a beautiful home, he owns it; this is a happy ending. But, in the middle of all of this, we were stopped at the McDonald's attached to the store where we were grocery shopping. There was a woman who appeared to be homeless, sitting at one of the tables eating food she'd gotten in the store. My husband bought her a McDonald's meal and a drink, so she'd be a customer, and get to sit there and have a meal out of the January cold. We've done stuff like this before. But, as he sat down, my husband said, "I just had to. I look at her and think, if everything didn't work out, that could be your brother."
Without so many pieces - my grandma, my mom, sellers who were willing to come down on price, a realtor who worked his butt off looking for inexpensive properties, mortgage company employees who worked their butts off to get financing that worked, and relatives willing to put up money and co-sign, and other relatives willing to offer a free room if the purchase fell through, yeah, my brother could be homeless. I feel that reality on a gut level.
Our oldest brother is in his 70s. He has more education than my husband and I combined, is multi-lingual, has a great work ethic, has an educated, hard working wife, and told me the last time I talked to him that neither he nor his wife was able to retire, that they probably never would be. Why? Their home - a modest, older home - still has a mortgage. Instead of paying it off, they've helped their children and grandchildren over the years. So now, they keep working, instead of retiring - but everyone has somewhere affordable to live.
If we either rented or sold our condos for market rate, my husband could retire now. Instead, he keeps working, and we rent below market rate, so that others can have affordable homes. Because if you work, but can't afford anywhere to live, it's not just you who suffers. Society starts to crumble.
We don't all own a Bailey Brothers Building and Loan. We all ride on the choices of our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents. But we can all try to make it easier not just for us, but for everyone else.
